About your Search

20130211
20130219
STATION
CSPAN 8
CSPAN2 4
MSNBC 4
MSNBCW 4
CNN 3
CNNW 3
WTTG 1
LANGUAGE
English 35
Search Results 0 to 34 of about 35 (some duplicates have been removed)
a serious discussion about foreign policy in defense during these nomination hearings. whether it's hagel or brennan or whatever. they're just taking cheap shots all over the place and they're not having a serious discussion. >> what -- >> in other words, if dick cheney wants to get in the ball game and have a really serious -- >> you raise this, i have to answer your question. what is the burr in lindsey graham's saddle? >> well -- >> why is he putting a hold on hagel? >> he's not going to put a hold on hagel. that's just -- he's just grabbing his ankles on the way out the door. hagel is going to be confirmed. it's a done deal. john mccain has blessed it. john mccain said he gave the committee enough -- said hagel gave the committee enough information i'm not going to hold him up on benghazi. i think lindsey graham is there to be the last annoying guy to make sure that hagel keeps whatever promises he made behind the scenes -- >> howard, does this -- >> to carl levin and -- >> the cisco kid may have handed 9 okay but poncho is still fighting the war. thank you, howard and joan. >>> miche
when he's had a stellar record on foreign policy. >> but you know these babbitts that sit in the audience for people like him. these bergers. you can see them from the rotary club, very polite. i can hear the audience, excellent point. well put, vice president. this second rate -- they all agree, they wouldn't have approved these people. wyoming doesn't deserve this guy. it's a beautiful state. >> i think that maybe dick cheney has a case of drone envy here. >> yeah. >> really? >> well, i mean -- >> go on, sir. >> okay. he's the guy who is used to being attacked by the aclu. >> i see. >> you see what i'm saying? actually president obama has got some weapons that dick cheney wouldn't mind having had, and the president -- >> this is getting way too -- pull back. >> and the president has been unafraid to use them. >> right. >> serious point -- >> i get -- >> the republicans spent a generation unhorsing democrats because democrats were, quote, weak on defense. >> they weren't willing to pull the trigger. >> they weren't willing to pull the trigger. barack obama, to the dismay
have pioneered a more nimbler, more effective approach to foreign policy. i am enormously proud of what we have achieved. i am confident about the future, having left the state department in the capable hands of secretary john kerry, himself an accomplished diplomat and decorated navy veteran. i believe that we have established a strong base for this kind of collaboration, which i think is essential going forward against the challenges and threats we face. i happen to have grown up in a navy household. during world war ii, my pother was chief petty officer, trained sailors -- training sailors. he never forgot and used to tell us how it felt when it was like watching the young men getting loaded onto troop trains, killing many would never return home. after he died many years later i received an outpouring of letters and photographs from some of the men he had trained at surt and returned home and build lives and families of the run. i could not believe that that experience, getting yelled at by my father, was so formative for them. i was glad to hear it, frankly. i saw this same sense o
support from senior statesman, defense and foreign policy organizations and the jittery 31 hearing he was endorsed enthusiastically by to former chairman of the committee the senators on the mission has been endorsed by five former secretary of defense who served under democratic and republican presidents, gates , a calling, perry, a brown and ugly year and endorsed by three former secretaries of state of six former national security advisers. receive letters of undress and from nine former ambassadors who worked on middle east issues and 11 and retired officers and 50 embassadors in national security officials. supported by the major groups of american veterans including iraq and afghanistan veterans of america, of vfw, a vietnam vets of america, and that an american legion and receive support from the military officers association of america, and the noncommissioned officers it is underscored by "war and peace" and i believe he enlisted in at army and received two purple hearts for the combat infantry badge. he served as deputy administrator during the reagan ministration and was tw
security foreign and development policies in an era of dynamic shifts and global affairs, a smart power approach. she led efforts in alliances and engaged emerging powers and develop new partnerships to advance american interest on security, and values. her sound counsel and steady hand guided the united states response to the global economic crisis. and the ever world and new opportunities and challenges in asia. she provided leadership in iraq and afghanistan during a security transition in those countries. her transformative leadership elevated the role as able partners for addressing the growing spectrum of security challenges and forge a strong relationship with the department of defense. her accomplishments reflect great art upon herself, the department of state, and the united states government. [applause] >> coats thank you, secretary panetta. ladies and gentlemen, the 67 secretary of state, hillary rodham clinton. [applause] >> thank you. this is certainly a memorable valentine's day. it is such an honor and personal privilege for me to be here with people whom i admire, respec
? >> what will he not talk about? >> well, they think that there will not be much talk about foreign policy. you threw me a curve there, maureen. that was good. i think the fact is that they feel that they have a good policy, he's not going to talk about the stories that you just ran about chuck hagel and about brennan at cia, and he is not going to talk about benghazi. he is going to say that the fate of the owe that the state of the union is strong, and he is going to point to his accomplishments. he feels very confident. based on the election results, he is going to do everything he can to make himself and the democratic party look good. >> perhaps, speaking to the state of the republican party, florida senator marco rubio, whose national profile is certainly being elevated, he is giving the republican response, not just in english but in spanish. what ask that say to you? >> that's the wave of the future. obviously they read the election figures. 71% of the voters who were hispanic voted democratic. they realize they're in electoral doomsday if they can't get into that con stitt you the
, she was talking about war, i don't think we will hear a lot about foreign policy tonight. we will hear about the president trying to and pull troops out of afghanistan. and we will probably hear about north korea, since that happened today. that might change things a little. by peter will be a good number of things that he will not mention, which is interesting. guest: i have never observed a pattern of wars beginning in conjunction with state of the union addresses. one thing i will watch for this evening is the congressional black caucus, a collection of black members of congress, met recently with valerie jarrett on the hill. she's one of the president's top advisers, to discuss the state of the union to some extent. the question i have is whether he is going to address black unemployment specifically and things that will help bring that number down. i think that is what the congressional black caucus wants, but i don't know if that is when he's going to do. host: host: kumar worked in florida and washington. jonathan strong has some experience at "roll call." here reported on envir
of foreign policy, and if you look at the fact that he has ended in the war in iraq, he has meandering towards ending the war in afghanistan, he's allowing the pentagon, and you've got to remember when you look at the pentagon, you're looking at an institution that has the fine motor skills of a dinosaur. it takes the pentagon a long time to put together a timetable such as for withdraw. all obama has to do, and i know it's not this simple, but i would look at the experience, came in in 1995, gave the speech in 1996, announcing the bleeding wound, he had nazis tell schulz we were getting out and the military had a year to turn it around, and they wouldn't be able to. 88, they announced the timetable, 89 they were gone. we need to do something similar. military's had its chances. we had 11 commanders in afghanistan in 11 years. look at thomas rick's book "the generals" that devotes a lot of attention to this. that's not a war where we can be successful. it's not the kind of military we have. there's no military that's ever been successful in a counter insurgency, and not only do they ha
the president's foreign policy priorities ought to be, looking at response to the turmoil of the arab spring, dealing with russia wouldn't seem to be anyone's natural first priority right now. jenna: one of the arguments, though, for doing this, according to "the new york times," is it would save a lot of money. if we don't have to keep these nuclear weapons and store them and watch them, that's going to save us a lot of cash, and we know the type of financial situation we're in right now. why isn't that a good argument? >> one, everyone would like to save cash, but really we've had $5 trillion added to our national debt over recent years, and maintenance of our nuclear strategic capability contributed nothing to that. and the proposed cuts, they say, would reduce about $120 billion in spending over 20 years, which is really a drop in the wasn't compared -- bucket compared to approaching $20 trillion in national debt. the second is the cut into intellectual capabilities well that should be stimulating economic development, research and development and applied technology. hitting these areas,
was a lovely president. him.ve host: what did you think of ronald reagan's foreign policy? caller: he had a good foreign policy. the increased our navy, our air force. that's how he defeated the soviet union. nobody ever did that. host: june 12, 1987, ronald reagan, in a speech to the people of west berlin about communism. [video clip] >> we welcome change and openness, but we believe freedom and security go together, that the in advance of human liberty can only strengthen the cause of world peace. there's one sign the soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance drastically the cause of freedom and peace. general secretary gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the soviet union, come to this gate. mr. gorbachev, open this gate. [cheers and applause] mr. gorbachev, tear down this wall. host: president ronald reagan. we have done a lot on the american presidents, house, and even those who did not make it to the presidency with our series "the contenders" last year. go to the archives are our website, the video library at c- span.org. if you're interest
emergency to deal with this threat to the national security and foreign policy of the united states. we are in the process of winding down the sanctions in response to developments in libya, including the fall of gaddafi and his government and the establishment of the democratically elected government. we are working closely with the new libyan government and with the international community to effectively and appropriately ease restrictions on sanctions, entities, including by taking actions consistent with the u.n. secretary council's decision to lift sanctions against the central bank of libya and to other entities on december 16, 2011. the situation in libya, however, continues to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the united states, and we need to protect against this threat and a diversion of assets were abused by certain members of gaddafi's family and other former regime officials. therefore, i have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency with respect to libya. signed barack obama, the white house, f
the answer, i don't know. i don't develop the programs, i don't develop policy, i don't do foreign policy or military policy or military objectives. once congress and the executive branch decide what the policy or program is, then we see how well it's done and if there are problems, we make recommendations. going back to the taxation issue, it's a critical issue. now the afghan government, what they collect is about $2 billion per year. just paying for the afghan national security force is over $4 billion. then all the other programs. the problem is there's a delta between what the afghans collect and it cost of running their government, the cost of fighting the taliban, the cost of maintaining order. that difference is being supported by the united states taxpayer and by our allies. but it is conditioned. the caller and others have some concerns about how well that is being spent. that is the value. a lot of discussion came out of the tokyo accords about the international community will not walk, but they're trying to put conditions on the ability of the afghan government to govern and t
the programs, i don't develop policy, i don't do foreign policy or military policy or military objectives. once congress and the executive branch decide what the policy or program is, then we see how well it's done and if there are problems, we make recommendations. going back to the taxation issue, it's a critical issue. now the afghan government, what they collect is about $2 billion per year. just paying for the afghan national security force is over $4 billion. then and all the other programs. the problem is there's a delta between what the afghans collect and it cost of running their government, the cost of fighting the taliban, the cost of maintaining order. that difference is being supported by the united states taxpayer and by our allies. but it is conditioned. the caller and others have some concerns about how well that is being spent. that is the value. a lot of discussion came out of the tokyo accords about the international community will not walk, but they're trying to put conditions on the ability of the afghan government to govern and to fight corruption. people see what happens
't know. idon't develop the programs, don't develop policy, i don't do foreign policy or military policy or military objectives. once congress and the executive branch decide what the policy or program is, then we see how well it's done and if there are problems, we make recommendations. going back to the taxation issue, it's a critical issue. now the afghan government, what they collect is about $2 billion per year. just paying for the afghan national security force is over $4 billion. then and all the other programs. the problem is there's a delta between what the afghans collect and it cost of running their government, the cost of fighting the taliban, the cost of maintaining order. that difference is being supported by the united states taxpayer and by our allies. but it is conditioned. the caller and others have some concerns about how well that is being spent. that is the value. a lot of discussion came out of the tokyo accords about the international community will not walk, but they're trying to put conditions on the ability of the afghan government to govern and to fight corrupt
very well. that's about him. but do they like the president's foreign policy? no. so these things kind of blend but generally you could say that for national security republicans, these two nominees, brennan on drones, for example, the use of drones, these nominees become proxies for policies they either question or they don't like. >> and moving forward, we're moving into this second term and the kind of makeup of congress is relatively speaking the same. how much do you think this will impact this hold on nominees, impact the relationship between republicans and democrats? it it can't get much worse. >> the white house isn't happy over hagel. they believe it's petty to hold him up when they believe he's going to eventually get confirmed. so they are not happy about it. republicans need to work with the white house on issues like immigration, for example, will this make for bad blood? yes. will it hold up immigration reform if it's in the interest of both parties to do it, probably not. i think the person who gets affected by this, quite honestly, is chuck hagel himself because he's g
is the president going to say. we've just learned what his big foreign policy announcement is going to be, jake tapper just broke that the president will announce on afghanistan that u.s. troops will be reduced by half by february of 2014, the number of u.s. troops in afghanistan will go down to 34,000, that's specificity we didn't have before and we expect him to detail tonight. carol, by and large the president will be focusing a lot on domestic priorities, specifically the economy. >> mr. speaker, the president of the united states. >> reporter: how times have changed. when he addressed congress one year ago, president obama faced sagging poll numbers and a tough road to re-election. the result? a state of the union address that contained few new proposals and largely fell flat, not likely this year. >> his party gained seats in both the senate and the house. the american people broadly speaking are with him and so he can deliver a speech without the kinds of political constraints that he faced just 12 months ago. >> reporter: white house officials tell cnn that tonight's address will book e
effective approach to foreign policy. so i am enormously proud of what we have achieved and i'm confident about the future having left the state department in capable hands of secretary john kerry, himself an accomplished diplomat decorated navy veteran. so i believe we have established a strong base for this kind of collaboration, which i think is essential and going forward against the challenges and threats that we face. i have been of growing up in a navy household. during world war ii, my father is a chief petty up sir, training soldiers before they were picked up to the pacific. he sits on my brothers and me how i felt watching this young man get loaded knowing that many would never return home. after he died, many years later, i received an outpouring of letters and photographs are men he trained, who is served and returned home in the lives and families of their own. i just couldn't believe that experience, being yelled at them i thought there so four-minute for a time when i was glad to hear it, frankly. i saw this same sense of dedication and duty when i first lady and senator f
the american foreign policy was conducted in the middle east and i don't think they indicate some kind of unsuitability to be secretary of defense. i think he would have been is wiser to state it as he did on other occasions saying he could have good relations with israel and at the same time good relations with other countries but stay true and look out for america's interests first. >> reporter: ajyan blogged about the comments at the time but despite he supports hagel's nomination. bill: what is the reaction we're getting on capitol hill? >> reporter: senator lindsey graham opposes hagel's nomination. he heard about the comments and wrote a letter to hagel on "fox news sunday" yesterday. hagel responded but he does not remember making the remarks but he now disavows them. gram has concerns about that and other comments. >> if the second statement were true he said that the secretary of state's office under the control of israeli foreign ministers. those two together would show an edge and view of the israeli-u.s. relationship way out of the mainstream. >> reporter: graham said he wi
foreign policy. i don't of military. i don't the military tactics. once congress and the executive branch decide what the policy or program is, we didn't see how well it is done. if there's problems we make recommendations. so going back to the taxation issue, it's a critical issue. right now the afghan government, what they collect is about $2 billion a year. just paying for the afghan national security forces, is over 4 billion. then you at all those other programs. so the problem is you can see there's a delta between what the afghans collect and the cost of running their government, the cost of fighting the taliban, and possibly maintaining order there. that difference is being supported by the united states taxpayer and by our allies. but it conditions. the collar and others have some concerns. about how well that is being spent but that value, a lot of discussion they came out of the tokyu of course about the internet community is not going to want what they're trying to put conditions on, rightly so, on the build of the afghan government to govern and to fight corruption. and we wi
will not make new policy, but, rather, advocate for existing positions. he's going to spend less time on foreign policy than on the economy but that's always the case in his state of the union speeches. on those fronts, expect him to address the drawdown in afghanistan, the u.s. relationship with china and also announce the start of a u.s./european union trade negotiation. big picture, wolf, it sounds like when it comes to republicans, he'll sort of have a club in one hand and olive branch in the other. >> it sounds like he's going to be emphasizing many of the themes he emphasized in the inaugural address. how will this one substantively be a whole lot different? >> his aides say to me that one was the philosophical statement of his beliefs. this one puts molcy meat on the bones. i'm told he will also talk about gay rights, women's rights and climate change. the big difference from the inaugural is the president views tomorrow night as his big opportunity to speak to the american people about the stakes in those across the board budget cuts looming at the end of the month and make his economic
. we must effectively deal with the rise of violence in our country. on foreign policy, america continues to be first in property and safe guarding human rights. the world is a better place when america is the strongest nation on earth. we can't remain powerful if we don't have a economy that can afford it. in the short time i've been in washington, nothing has been more difficult than the choices. the choice is not just between big government or business. what we need is accountable and efficient and effective government that allows small and new businesses to create more middle class jobs. we don't have to raise taxes to avoid the president's devastating cuts to our military. republicans passed a plan that replaced these cuts with responsible spending reforms. in order to balance our budget the choice doesn't have to be higher taxes or dramatic benefit cuts for those in need, instead we should grow our economy so we can create new taxpayers, not new taxes. so our government can afford to help others who truly cannot help themselves. and the truth is every problem can't be solv
third nuclear test overnight. the therapy of the house foreign affairs committee just weighed in. he says the obama administration must replace its failed north korean policy with one that is energetic, creative and focused on crippling the kim regime's military capabilities through stringent sanctions. senior foreign affairs correspondent greg palkot has the late nest london. you moved from the pope's story to this world crisis now, greg. >> yeah, crazy week. the world, in fact, got a bit more dangerous overnight. u.n. officials, i was speaking to a few minutes ago, confirmed to me that they believe the north korea has tested yet another nuclear device. but most importantly, they tell me this device is twice as powerful as the one they detonated in 2009. they base that on seismic measurements they're taking from the test site. north korea today claiming they have tested a smaller, more sophisticated device, which means, according to my contacts in north korea and korea that i've been speaking to, this could be better put on top of a missile. remember, in december, north korea had th
on capitol hill blasting the obama administration, the chairman of the house foreign affairs committee, republican ed royce, is calling on the administration to replace what he calls a failed north korea policy. chief white house or correspondent ed henry is live on the north lawn. ed, do we expect the president to mention this north korea mess in his state of the union speech tonight? and if so, if i may, how does it fit into his agenda? >> reporter: sure, arthel. bottom line is the president's aides say he is likely to mention this essentially failed test by the north koreans tonight. they are deeply concerned here at the white house, though, that know keeps doing these tests. as you say, the president put out a written statement calling this provocative, and they're basically saying, though, in the end it didn't really work, is so they don't think north korea is as far along in their nuclear program as certainly north korea hopes. nonetheless, we think the president will mention it, not dwell on it tonight. instead, he wants to talk about the economy and jobs according to top aides.
Search Results 0 to 34 of about 35 (some duplicates have been removed)